Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (59724)	8/12/2004 7:16:25 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Respond to of 793841

THE 9/11 COMMISSION ROADSHOW August 12, 2004 -- Members of the 9/11 Commission are rapidly becoming the dinner guests who won't leave. On Tuesday, Co-Chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton were on Capitol Hill, insisting that Congress pass the panel's recommendations in toto, despite legitimate reservations from some Pentagon officials. Let's cut to the chase: The panel's members completed the job they were asked to do. They need to vanish. Members examined actions (and inactions) pertinent to the 9/11 attacks. They made serious recommendations to improve U.S. security. But that's not good enough for them. A week ago, Kean said he wants the presidential candidates' responses to the recommendations to be a factor in how Americans vote in November. He said it was "wonderful" that the 9/11 "families" would be monitoring the elections to see how the finding were integrated. What hubris. The panel was created by Congress, with the Bush administration's support. Its findings should inform policy. But no one ever suggested that members hold a monopoly on the proper course forward. That their recommendations were to be rubber-stamped by Congress. Or that any candidate who thought more time was needed to consider their findings, or who outright disagreed with them, should be rejected straight off. Moreover, the notion that the 9/11 "families" — a disparate group, to put it mildly — somehow have standing to make national policy is errant nonsense. Congress does not work for the "families"; it works for all Americans. And its charge is to consider carefully all ideas and decide what's best for the nation. Yes, the commission did valuable work educating the public on the terrorist threat — despite the presence of members like Richard Ben-Veniste, an overt partisan, and Jamie Gorelick, who suffered a fundamental conflict of interest. Now it's time to quit. But they won't. Instead, members are off on their "9/11 Commission Tour of the Americas: 2004." Expect regular TV appearances and more Capitol Hill drop-ins. Our advice? Ignore them. nypost.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (59724)	8/12/2004 7:20:56 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793841

I think you waaaaay underestimate the political dynamite contained in this. I know that. Even just skimming I could not help but notice that. <g> Which is why I posed the question, which you still haven't answered, btw. I have explained why I think it doesn't matter--because in the final analysis we vote for someone with whom we are attuned on the issues--war, health care, education, whatever, and we hold our noses if we have to over character issues. The only time issues like Kerry's alleged deception matter is when the candidates are similar on the real issues. In this case they're not. Are you going to make an argument for your position or are you just going to re-re-re-restate it? No fun when everybody agrees with you. Not only is it no fun, it breeds an unhealthy exclusionary climate.